Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?

[hlphoto]

I don't think there is a free lunch in fixing the 5D Mk2 problems decently.
The Panasonic GH2 and AF101 both have problems of their own and both can only deliver their resolution advantage when fiddled with in the right way. It's like comparing a 5D Mk1 to a 7D for stills: Yes, 18mp is more than 12.8, now go out and make that 7D resolve more than the 5D does. I bet you'll have a hard time to say the least during most work.

 

[Gothmoth]

I actually ask mostly in all seriousness, and with a little humour to boot.

I'm a pro photographer, and the last time Canon released a FF was almost 3 years ago, with the 5D Mk2. There is no 'official' word at all of any new FF, whether it's 1D, 3D, 5D etc.

i doubt you are a pro photographer.
and i now a lot because i sell gear to them.

 

[kubelik]

"I also contest the assertion that because you haven't gotten a new FF replacement for the 5D II in 3 years that Canon isn't doing anything with that lineup:"

FACT: Last FF camera announced by Canon? 5D Mk2, August 2008.

yeah, so we're on the same page. unless you find a 3 year replacement cycle surprising for some reason? that's what canon's always run with their pro bodies. nikon is typically 4 years. we're in the photography market, not the desktop CPU market ... I'm just confused why you're treating this as some affront from Canon that we were suckered into.

1. FF Epic is ... $12K for body only? from what I recall in your first post, you were saying Canon should put out a competitor at around $3000? forgive me for not knowing anything, but last time I checked I thought only the 2/3" RED sensor bodies were down at around 3K? don't get me wrong, I'd love to see 4:2:2 and no jello and no jaggies and 120p options and no moire in my video. HECK YES to all that. getting it for 3 grand, I just don't think that's realistic.

2. everyone knows that today we're no longer paying for the megapixels. come on, you know that too. otherwise, why is a 1D IV more expensive than a T2i? it's all in the body, AF, build quality, etc. I agree the D3S has some awesome noise characteristics, ridiculously clean files. but if Nikon can go from D700 to D3S in terms of image quality per pixel, there's no reason Canon can't go the same on their 21MP sensor, in terms of per pixel IQ. lots of demonstrations showing that the 5DII's 21MP sensor downscaled to 12MP pretty much matched the D700's 12MP sensor exactly. so it's a wash. I also don't think you're going to get much faster shooting rates than the 10 FPS that pro bodies are currently maxing out at. there's a limit as to how fast you can clear electrical current from a given sensor size to prevent ghosting.

3. you're right, a 5DIII is likely around the corner, and will be costing you $3000 ... but with video. so... is there a complaint in there? sounds pretty good to me. again, I don't get the griping about product release timeline when it's been a fairly consistent release timeline. it's like complaining about not seeing any birthday presents about a month ahead of your birthday... just have a wait and see. I don't think Canon is seriously going to go another year without releasing a new-and-much-improved FF body. if they do pull that stunt then, why yes, you're given a free pass to complain all you want, because that would be really terrible of Canon. but do you really think you're not going to see a release announcement in august or september?

 

[NXT1000]

I have to agree 5d2 at 3200 and above, indoor shot, look pretty noisy on LCD at 100%, when print on paper it look better though. I hope the new version can improve on that aspect. Yes, d3 is better in noise, but it also has lower resolution. Canon made more money on consumer camera than on the pro, so they are putting there eggs where it matters for them.

 

[gene_can_sing]

Personally, I highly doubt the video version of the 5D3 is going to cost 3k. I personally think, and hope there will be 2 version of the 5D3 (or maybe it will be the fabled 3D which is video optimized).

4:2:2 50mb codec + possible RAW to Recorder are charged a serious premium by the competition (Panny, Sony and RED). I doubt most still photogs want to pay a couple thousand extra for those features. I know that Sony's latest video camera is a 4:2:0 codec, and you have to pay an extra 3K for a hardware un-lock to access the 4:2:2 (Or it might be 4:4:4) codec. That's a really lame way to do business, but it shows that good video codecs do not come cheap.

As for Canon announcing something this year, I have my doubts for sure because of their poor track record. The last 1D (2007) has missed it's 3 year cycle by almost 1 year now. So Canon is officially on 4 year product cycles. Super lame.

I think if Canon did yearly updates to their pro bodies, they will sell more cameras and make more people happy. The video stuff is moving so fast, that yearly updates are necessary. For example, the video Moire problem has been around for 3 to 4 years now! It should have been fixed after 1 year. I would have gladly bought a new model and paid a premium just to have that problem fixed. Then the next year they could fix the Jello problem, and I would have gladly bought that model also.

Instead, it's their yearly releases are just cameras with minor firmware updates. Shameful.

Canon is not evolving fast enough, and they don't care because once you buy a few L lenses, they know they own you.

 

[hlphoto]

If only someone made 35mm sensors that can be used in a 'proper' cinema style video cam.

Can we think of anyone?

Arri Alexa, Panavision, and a little bit of red. We all know what those cost.

As for the money the salesmen would make.. I would say do put your money where your mouth is and invest in Nikon. If there's that much to spend the little loss to your lenses shouldn't be keeping you. A colleague swapped from a 1D3 to a D3s and he's a professional soccer photographer... so he had to sell a 200 f/2, a 300 f/2.8, a 400 f/2.8, a 500 f/4 and some "normal stuff" (24-70, 70-200 f/2.8, 100-400, 17-40, 15 fish). Even he didn't lose that much - what's keeping you?

 

[ronderick]

I'm really starting to see why this profession needs some shaking up I have to say.

We are in a fast moving industry, we need tools that update faster than 3 years. And if YOU don't, what are you going to lose if they update every 18 months?

We were given a taste of video DSLR, new possibilities, then nothing.

No advances, and no fixes for obvious flaws. Again, if your happy, fine. I'm not. You can't build a new area of industry (DSLR) on a 3 year product cycle.

You know, our photography department should have you write their proposal for replacing their outdated fleet of 1DIII with the new 1DIV. I'm sure you'll be able to convince our boss the benefits of what the new bodies can do where the old ones can't.

 

[YoukY63]

You know, our photography department should have you write their proposal for replacing their outdated fleet of 1DIII with the new 1DIV. I'm sure you'll be able to convince our boss the benefits of what the new bodies can do where the old ones can't.

Getting a tad fed up of sarcastic comments. Some people it would seem would be happy if Canon updated every 20 years or so.

The 1DMk4 is hardly new, it's older than an iPad 1 at 18 months.

What about no updates, ever? Happier now? Wow, i can do sarcasm too.

As I've said repeatedly, IF YOU are happy, or your department is happy with a 3 year or longer cycle, go for it.

Keep your cam till it's dies after years and years, and replace it with the same one if you like, I couldn't care less.

I have no issue with that. It's your choice to be in that environment. I don't want that. I want to give Canon money more often, they just don't seem to want it.

And if you have do a problem getting your bosses to buy current kit, get a new boss or become your own, because the fast moving independent photographer is eating this dusty industry alive, and it's easy to see why.

What kind of improvement do you expect on a pro camera after "only" 18 months? Do you have any idea of the cost to develop new technology? Your 1 stop improvement for half step camera + 2 stops for next full step camera is just a joke and so ridiculous...
Look at the APS-C Canon cameras. They are almost all using the same sensor since 2 years now, because developing a new sensor is VERY expensive, difficult and requires time. So the only thing they improve is body/ergonomics/electronics.
So is that what you want in your 5Dm2.5? A tilting screen and 1 or 2 more buttons? Because that's all what Canon would offer to you for the same price. Then, happy you, you paid 3k dollars to have the same camera with slightly improved ergonomics. Excuse us, not so rich people, to prefer to keep or money for the next real upgrade.

What you ask to canon now is to develop 4 new FF sensors every 18 months, plus the new APS-C one(s) of course that are the real one(s) to bring money to Canon. OK, so be ready to pay 10k dollars each FF camera, because that's what it would cost.

If spending 10k dollars every 18 months is not a problem for you as you suggested earlier, why don't you also buy a Nikon Camera to do the job you need in low light if not happy with Canon. That would be the price to have the full Nikon set, and for the following years you can enjoy just changing bodies when they come out from the brand having the best offer.

By the way, why do you think no still camera can offer all the video options you and some other videographers are asking? Because it is today technologically impossible! Big sensors such as FF cannot have the same read speed as small sensors (cf rolling shutter). I am not saying it will never be possible, but until today, it was not, at least not at an acceptable price. Also, I wonder why there is so many people here complaining about video abilities of DSLR. Never saw so many videographers before, probably an american specificity. In Europe and Asia, people don't really care about doing serious movies with DSLR.
DSLR are not video-camera, have never been and it will never be their main purpose. That is just an option, a possibility. Do not expect much more. Especially for 5D series, which is a (semi-)professional tool for still photography.

 

[NotABunny]

Same with low light.

In truth the Mk2 didn't improve raw ISO much, maybe a stop. The D3s proved not everyone was wanting 21 meg over pure image quality.

Canon could have eaten the video market alive by releasing a DSLR with a FF low meg sensor. 12800 ISO would be a reality, no jaggies, less jello, and every cinema wannabe would have bought one, as it would be simply so far ahead of the game.

In reality HD only needs a 2 meg sensor. How sensitive would a FF sensor be with only 2 million pixels?

It could literally shoot anywhere, with any available light. An indie filmmakers wet dream.

How hard would that be technically? Not very. It's actually a step back, away from the mg war, but a good step back.

Actually, a low resolution sensor is a wet dream of people who keep dreaming that the laws of physics are bendable, and who belive there is this magic recipe for low noise levels. There is none!

In current camera sensors, the size of the pixel (or resolution) has no VISIBLE effect on the noise level of the ENTIRE photo (= it only affects the noise level of the individual pixels). The only thing that matters is the size of the sensor (well, obviously, besides technology).

The reason why there are sensors for phones, for compact cameras, for DSLRs, for medium format, and... telescopes, is the sensor size, NOT the pixel size.

It's difficult for people to understand that a bigger sensor means that the photos contain more light for the same exposure. They ask themselves where does that light go because they don't see brigther photos. The answer is simple: the photos are scaled to the same physical size (but the scale factor is different, relative to the sensor size), so the light goes into annihilating the noise.


As for the so called superiority of D3s, you can look at actual photos and see that it has the same noise level as 1D4, per area of sensor (NOT per pixel, or entire photo for that matter since the sensor of 1D4 is smaller).


Why does the light matters (rather than ISO)? I don't know for certain (I have two reasons), but you can look at this shot taken with a 40D at ISO 3200, and at this taken with ISO 400. If the EXIF were to not say the ISO, would you belive your eyes?

 

[NotABunny]

I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is www.deanagar.com.au

Those photos look great, but since you're shooting with controlled lighting, why do you need the high ISO improvement? Note that at low ISO, the noise in the shadows is actually higher than the one from the same area but at high ISO (Neuroanatomist posted a link, but I don't recall what it was). Weird, but true, so it seems that photographers really need to wait for a company to create a sensor that can do multiple ISOs for the same shot (which would also allow us to do hand-held HDR).

 

[NotABunny]

Actually, a low resolution sensor is a wet dream of people who keep dreaming that the laws of physics are bendable, and who belive there is this magic recipe for low noise levels. There is none!

Tell me you're joking

I am not joking. I am simply stating that you're using the wrong comparison criteria: individual pixels instead of ENTIRE photos.

Is that why camera makers are increasing pixel count at the expense of clarity? Because the market doesn't realise that a clean 10 meg image trumps a noisy 20 meg image every single time?

There was some post here to a list of images of the same subject taken with cameras from (I think) 10D to 5D2. Those showed that you claim about sharpness is false. It was the opposite. The newer the technology (which coincidently also meant more pixels), the sharper the photos were.

Noise is the variation between how each photo site reads the light coming in. The smaller the site, more variation between what one pixel thinks the colour is, and what the next one thinks it is.

I don't care about pixels. I care about the ENTIRE image. (See below.)

You mean the pixels that make up the image itself has no effect on noise level in the photo?

Correct.

I give up, I truly do

That's your choice, but you'll not understand the difference between what noise means for individual pixels and what it means for ENTIRE photos.

 

[YoukY63]

You only have to look at the xxxD series to see that, without even looking at the other glaring example, 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, 60D.

So people willing to spend $1000 or less have had 6 cameras in the same timeframe as the pros who spend $3-6000 have had 2.

Am I the only one that doesn't feel pros are a priority anymore?

That is a very good example, thank you very much. So people that bought all the XXXD or the 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, 60D spent 6000+$. Finally, wat did they get? During this 6 years, they just get a camera which do not provide yet a better picture than the 3000$ 5DmI that a pro would have bought 6 years ago.
So finally, upgrading XXD bodies every year during 6 years did not even catch up the antediluvian pro body IQ, not even talking about the "old" 5DmII.

Maybe that's why real professional don't care about getting a "new" body every year.
Then, if you feel better pro with a 600D because it is more recent, please, go ahead.

 

[plam_1980]

I could not agree more with jakeymate. I have been willing to move to FF for an year, but have been put down by the constant rumours and expectations for 5d Mk3. I am willing to do this only as a hobby, not for professional work, so I am not pressed by time and am not willing to pay that money for 5d mk2, when its replacement is (over)due

 

[Kit.]

In current camera sensors, the size of the pixel (or resolution) has no VISIBLE effect on the noise level of the ENTIRE photo (= it only affects the noise level of the individual pixels). The only thing that matters is the size of the sensor (well, obviously, besides technology).

In current camera sensors, yes. Because it's way too expensive and way too slow to have a global shutter and to average several readouts of the same pixel on 18 million pixel sensors.

But for the hypothetical 2 megapixel full-frame video sensor it's feasible. And such sensor would also not really need microlenses.

 

[NotABunny]

The photo is pixels, if they are noisy, then the photo is noisy.

This is not how noise works in images. When you average noisier but MORE pixels, you get the same noise level. The noise per AREA (like square millimeter) is maintained.

All you have to do is look at actual images of the same subject shot in the same conditions.

In current camera sensors, the size of the pixel (or resolution) has no VISIBLE effect on the noise level of the ENTIRE photo (= it only affects the noise level of the individual pixels). The only thing that matters is the size of the sensor (well, obviously, besides technology).

In current camera sensors, yes. Because it's way too expensive and way too slow to have a global shutter and to average several readouts of the same pixel on 18 million pixel sensors.

But for the hypothetical 2 megapixel full-frame video sensor it's feasible. And such sensor would also not really need microlenses.

I'm not sure I understand you. By "several readouts" do you mean several "exposures"? Obviously having more light per photo gives you lower noise.

Or are you saying that averaging several reads gives a more accurate (/ average) read? (But this has nothing to do with resolution, at least not in theory, though in practice in may be the only workable way.)

 

[Peter Canon]

It's so funny to see people get so emotional over cameras.

 

[NotABunny]

That said, skin in shadows looks a mess on the 5D. It doesn't fall neatly to black, but blotches horribly in the blue and red channels. They all have to be smoothed and/or crushed.

There you have it. For the shadows, the image taken at ISO 1600 has a lower noise level (than the image taken at ISO 100). The guy combined two shots (ISO 100 and 1600) to get a better image across all brightnesses. Noise works in mysterious ways.


Here is the guy's explanation:

The sensor doesn't know what ISO gain is going to be used, it just records whatever photons arrive, leaving it to circuitry off the sensor to amplify the signal and digitize it. This means that the sensor sees the *entire* range of the figure -- the upper bound or "envelope" of all the different curves. The sensor has about 14 stops of DR, but the limitations of the rest of the circuits allow the final raw data to see less than twelve stops of DR, and the user is forced to choose a "window" of EV within that 14 stop range by selecting the ISO gain.

 

[Kit.]

I'm not sure I understand you. By "several readouts" do you mean several "exposures"? Obviously having more light per photo gives you lower noise.

By "several readouts" I mean several readouts. I.e. several attempts to amplify and digitize the same charge accumulated by the photo cell.

Light (shot noise of the arriving photons, to be exact) is not the only source of the noise in the pictures. Another source is the read noise (thermal noise in particular) of the sensor+amplifier. And it is relatively larger for smaller cells. You can average it between several cells of a higher-resolution sensor, but you can average it between several reads of the same cell of a lower-resolution CMOS sensor as well.

 

[NotABunny]

I'm not sure I understand you. By "several readouts" do you mean several "exposures"? Obviously having more light per photo gives you lower noise.

By "several readouts" I mean several readouts. I.e. several attempts to amplify and digitize the same charge accumulated by the photo cell.

Light (shot noise of the arriving photons, to be exact) is not the only source of the noise in the pictures. Another source is the read noise (thermal noise in particular) of the sensor+amplifier. And it is relatively larger for smaller cells. You can average it between several cells of a higher-resolution sensor, but you can average it between several reads of the same cell of a lower-resolution CMOS sensor as well.

That's a neat trick, but my instinct says that can't work. (Sure, my instinct said that a photo at ISO 1600 can't have a lower noise in the shadows than one at ISO 100.)

I mean, if the electrical charge sits there for longer, isn't it more affected by the thermal noise? (I mean, doesn't it degrade in time?)

Do you know of anyone who has such a sensor?

 

[kirillica]

jakeymate, I'm fan of you! ;D post more, it's pleasure to read you